Chapter 4: Workshop design, delivery and evaluation
4.1 Case study 1: "Northland Dairy Cow Nutrition" workshop
4.1.6 Workshop outcomes
Participants completed an evaluation questionnaire (Appendix 2) at the end of the
workshop. Table
6
s
ummarises participants' questionnaire responses about how
confident they were in meeting each of the learning objectives at the end of the
workshop and how much new knowledge they had gained. The participants indicated
they were reasonably confident in being able to meet each of the objectives set
(median score of 4 for objectives 7-5 and a median score of 5 for objectives 6-8. All
on a scale of l ="not confident" to 5="confident". There were no scores below 3.)
From this feedback it appears that the negotiated learning outcomes were achieved.
Participants were asked to estimate their "gain in knowledge" concerning dairy cow
nutrition on a scale of 1 ="learnt little" to 5="leamt a lot". The range was 2-5, with a
median score of 4 for all except Objective 2a (median=5) (Table 6). This indicates that
most participants gained a considerable amount of knowledge, however, for each
objective there were a small number (not the same individuals throughout) who
already had reasonable knowledge in the subject matter in question. On the basis of
this rudimentary evaluation, it was concluded that the workshop helped each of the
participants build on their existing knowledge and to integrate this with the
information, concepts and skills presented during the two-day progr
amme.
Table 6
S
ummary of workshop participants' (n= 1 1) scores of confidence
in their learning outcomes and gain in knowledge. (Four
participants did not complete the written questionnaire.)
outcome Gain in
I am now be able to: not confident learnt learnt
confident little a lot
-
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 . Explain the key metabolic pathways linking the median 4, range 3-5 median 4, range 3-5
main dietary components in feed to dairy cow
2. Calculate the energy and protein requirements median 4, range 3-5 median 4, range 2-5
of cows in different physiological states, and to
be aware of the limitations of using mineral
concentrations as a basis for cow
2a. List the main factors that determine the median 4, range 3-5 median 5, range 2-5 potential voluntary feed intakes (VFI) and list
the factors that may limit the attainment of VFI
in
3. Identify potential problems (health and median 4, range 3-5 median 4, range 2-5 production) arising from feeding different feeds
based on their nutrient composition data from
references and
4. Identify potential problems (production and median 4, range 3-5 median 4, range 2-5 health) by monitoring cow performance, and
identify appropriate remedial (and/or
preventative) actions involving changes in
feeds and/or
5. Calculate the likely extra return from a given median 4, range 3·5 median 4, range 2-5
in ration.
6. Describe the difference in philosophy between median 5, range 3-5 median 4, range 2-5
the dairy grazing management systems of the
last three decades, and those being used to achieve high production and high profit through increasing both per cow and per hectare
7. Identify key issues in pasture management and median 5, range 4-5 median 4, range 2-5
supplementary feeding systems that will influence dairy farm production and
8. Integrate pasture management and median 5, range 3-5 median 4, range 3-5
supplementary feeding systems to reach the objectives set by individual farmers (e.g. optimise total profit or per cow or per hectare; achieve high pasture utilisation; achieve high
cow or ha
Positive discussion and verbal feedback occurred during lunch and tea breaks
throughout the workshop. 1bis feedback was confirmed by responses to the open-
ended questions in the written evaluation (Appendix 2) s
ummarised in Tables 7-9.
These questions asked participants to note: what aspects of the workshop were done
well, what aspects could have been improved and if the workshop did not meet their
expectations, to explain why. The presenters gained satisfaction and confidence from
the positive interaction and feedback. A number of unplanned benefits also arose
from the workshop: first, participants discovered that there were local resource people
available to them; second, the presenters gained experience in developing and
presenting a workshop for farmers; and third, the considerable networking that
occurred led to other actlVltles of common interest being organised between
participants and presenters.
Table 7
Aspects of the workshop that the partlctpants considered were done
well (responses to an open-ended question).
Discussion time/interchange of ideas.
Explanation of individual sections/papers well presented. Good reference material.
Protein requirements. Mineral requirements. Cow nutritional requirements. Ruminant digestion.
Feeds & their limitations.
Ration balancing, calculating feed costs.
Calculations that show why we don't see the results (we expect). Smith's case study.
Topic flows very logical.
(8 mentions) (6 mentions) (4 mentions)
(2 mentions) (2 mentions)
The feedback indicated that the participants found the design of the workshop and
reference material very suitable, especially the
mixof presentations and discussion.
The questions and exercises set in the workbook proved to be good stimulants for
interactive discussion.
Some comments indicated personal preferences for more or less time spent on
particular topics e.g. comments included "Maybe more on pasture" and "A little
more depth on changes seen on-farm . . . "(Table 8). If a specific topic was identified
(e.g. pastures), this may be revised for future workshops. It appears that the art of
good facilitation is to balance the programme to suit the majority of participants.
Table 8
Aspects of the workshop which part1c1pants considered could be
improved (responses to an open-ended question).
None.
Maybe more on .pasture.
A little more time spent on some of the subjects (none specified).
A little more depth on changes seen on-farm e.g. milksolid production,
animal health which could indicate imbalances occurring.
Less use of whiteboard for prepared examples. More time working through examples in the book. More research to support some statements.
Be able to read papers prior to the workshop. Some confusion, arguments between speakers.
(2 mentions) (2 mentions) (2 mentions)
Some participants found it difficult to cope with disagreements amongst 'experts'
(Table 9) . While there were no major disagreements, some differences in opinions
between speakers were detected.
Table 9
General comments from part1c1pants about the workshop (single
comments) (responses to an open-ended question).
Enjoyed the two days & found it stimulating. Well done. Where's the next one?
Excellent two-day workshop.
Well done. Good to see Massey staff in North land.
Very good workshop. Discussion between tutors and participants was quite enlightening. Very pleased to be part of this seminar.
I would certainly promote any future seminars, and I would like to see this happen. An excellent workshop.
Met my expectations
More than met my expectations
When this happened, time was taken to: acknowledge the differences, and for each
presenter to support their claims and why they differed from the other perspective; to
acknowledge that the situation was complex; that even the 'experts' were working with
incomplete information; and that each person needed to make their own judgement
based on the information they had at the time. The participants felt that some
information seemed contradictory e.g. "some confusion, arguments between
speakers" (Table 9). From verbal comments received during the workshop, however,
the confusion often disappeared once the context
inwhich the statements were made
had been clarified and the participants had developed a better understanding of the issues being discussed.
In general, the results achieved were a credit to the presenters, and the flexibility they showed in their approach helped the attendees to develop their knowledge about the complex relationships and interactions involved with dairy cow nutrition.